New Preview at Gamespot

[binTravkin]

I don't think it's good that the materials spent on a project are wasted.

Retooling penalty would probably work better but even then it would take quite much away from game - people will start less SPs fearing of lost resources.

Unless the crawler concept is in or you can disband units for minerals Im gonna be pretty scary on starting anything..

[AeonOfTime]

I don't think it's good that the materials spent on a project are wasted

THey are not really wasted - from what I gleaned from the article, you get a refund in money for buildings that you can't build anymore (Wonders), and when you switch between unit types, the progress on each is saved and you start off where you left when you change back.

Seems reasonable to me...

[binTravkin]

Anyways, I'll lose something and that's no good.
Imagine you've poured everything you have just to get that very important Great Library project (and you're playing MP and all the others are at least as strong as you) which will give you each tech any 2 others own and now in the very last turn someone still finishes it before you.

That's it.
Game over.

You've lost too much time going for it and the cash refund is not gonna be generous enough.
In MP games such crass loss of resources will most likely result in a defeat or serious weakening.
You will have to think hard before starting any project.


Anyways - I liked the trailer featuring George W. and Sid M.

[AeonOfTime]

You've lost too much time going for it and the cash refund is not gonna be generous enough.
In MP games such crass loss of resources will most likely result in a defeat or serious weakening.
You will have to think hard before starting any project.

I agree - but we will have to see how this applies to Civ4, as we are all still thinking in terms of Civ3 (obviously), and those two games will be quite different. Maybe in Civ4 such a loss will not represent as much as in Civ3 in MP...

[Dale]

I don't think it's good that the materials spent on a project are wasted.

I can just see Pharaoh standing over his slaves thinking, "Damn Greeks beat me to the Pyramids. Oh well, we'll just instantaneously change all these stone blocks to bronze and finish off the Colosus instead."

Yeah RIGHT! Good one! That's how it works in Civ3.

Dale

[Modo44]

Originally posted by binTravkin
I don't think it's good that the materials spent on a project are wasted.

Retooling penalty would probably work better but even then it would take quite much away from game - people will start less SPs fearing of lost resources.

Well, the MM is not a nice thing to have. But being able to switch without penalties would be too easy, and too unrealistic, I think.

If the lost production is converted to cash, you can then use it for rushing, so it works kind of like a switch with a penalty, no? It works in a different way, perhaps making it easier for the AI to cope with.

[binTravkin]

Yes, it is unrealistic, but it takes away from gameplay to not have it.

Don't you see it?

All games are unrealistic to an extent and realism does not always lead to good gameplay.

If it did we wouldn't be playing games, but playing life!

[yin26]

ICS lives on it seems, though settler diahrrea (from the CPU) looks reduced...so perhaps at least I could limit my own ICS in the spirit of the game. Still, he with more cities has more production sites for units, etc. Disappointing.

In any event, at least they seem to be taking the game somewhat seriously this time (multiplayer from the ground up is significant and seems also to have taught them some AI lessons).

[Dale]

Yin:

Where's it say ICS? I didn't see it in the article.

[yin26]

Dale:

Briggs makes an allusion to it when he says you don't need to "necessarily" build lots of cities. Their solution of sorts is a) not to send lots of CPU settlers across your lands --which was a big annoyance in Civ 3, of course-- and b) to make a single city more interesting (and more powerful?) to build up over time.

In other words, nothing that says that the dominant strategy still won't be to build tons of cities, and if the CPU isn't also doing the same because he's happy trimming and pruning his half dozen or so cities, then I don't see how the computer stands a chance against ICS. This is where I think that limiting yourself against the CPU will likely be the only "gentleman's" way of getting a competitive game going.

Overall you still got the sense that they are flat out worried about messing with the formula too much, so it seems that ICS will be alive and strong...though I'm willing to play nice against the computer to see what happens.

[DeathByTheSword]

sorry but ICS?

[Modo44]

ICS = Infinite City Sprawl (or Spacing). It means placing cities extremely close together. A strategy the AI does not know and can never cope with. It's power was toned down in Civ3 compared to Civ2, but it remained very potent. Judging by the screenies so far, we might see it die in CIV. But I would not bet on it just yet...

Originally posted by binTravkin
Yes, it is unrealistic, but it takes away from gameplay to not have it.

Don't you see it?

All games are unrealistic to an extent and realism does not always lead to good gameplay.

If it did we wouldn't be playing games, but playing life!

Same old, same old. I understand you, I just happen to disagree on the level of simplification I am willing to take. I find it good that shields do not just carry over between builds, as that would make the game too dumb. To me, making this aspect of the game too simple would take from gameplay, not making it more sophisticated..

[yin26]

DeathByTheSword: Sorry -- Inifinite City Sleaze is the act of placing as many cities around the map as you possibly can because this gives you an enonomy of scale advantage over a player who doesn't do this...so in its worst (most powerful form) you are spending a great deal of your game time simply flooding the map with cities. Again, a player need not do this, but if it's clearly the best way to work the game mechanics in your favor, then some of the other nicer parts of the game lose out.

Settler diarrhea, by the way, is a term I used to describe how in Civ 3 the CPU would also do ICS to such a degree that he squeezed out a seeminly endless stream of these dirty things...all over your land, his land, the computer monitor, the ceilings, etc. (sorry for the image!). But in a world that at least recognized the power of ICS, this made some sense and could often at least impede the player's build up on the early game, which made for some tense (and bizarre) moments.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Vince278
Yes it did but it was less than perfect. I've noticed that units in the same stack would have the same position from battle to battle. If your frontal units were damaged in one battle they would still be up front for following battles instead of being cycled to the rear where they can safely range strike.

A Legion shouldnt be able to range strike, injured or not. Cycling means an Archer (or other ranged) takes the Legions place and goes to the front, which is even worse.

Injured men were sent back to fight, and back to the position theyre equipped/trained for, if you dont want them fighting (and possibly dying) you pull them from the army altogether to heal.

[DeathByTheSword]

oh after reading the preview i just want start learning phycis so that i can build a freaking time machine...

EDIT: tnx for the ICS explaination...but i am not that of a noob that i need the entire background story i am just bad in all this civ vet. talk